Hilarious game thread. If you relied on this you'd never know that the Browns dominated the game. The Raiders really had one big play - the nice bomb by Palmer - but otherwise were stymied by this defense.

Weeden took apart a crappy secondary the way he is supposed to. He had a terrible pick in the first and a 'good' pick (underthrown as he was hit on a deep pass) later in the game. I was a little surprised at how much pressure they were able to bring but he consistently stayed in the pocket.

That's also two out of three weeks where he engineered a TD drive in the final minutes of the 4th. To tie it up against Dallas and to put this one out of reach.

The defense with Haden/Taylor/Rubin is obviously the main difference between the second half of the season and the first but Weeden is looking more and more comfortable late in games.

Now if someone can just give him something to chill the hell out before he takes the field to start the game he could be a very, very good QB. Richardson has me a little concerned - he needs a game with a couple big runs - but he does seem very effective in the red zone.

I saw a talented young football team play like a talented young football team beat a team they were supposed to beat. I see no reason that with a little more seasoning, this team can't compete for a playoff next year. We're 4-3 after the 0-5 start and that bespeaks of improvement to me. We beat the Steelers and then got a streak going.

And best of all, Weeden can make throws I haven't seen a Browns QB make since coming back to the league. Sure, he throws some bad picks. Really bad, sometimes. Almost like he were a rookie with rookie WRs. Give him another offseason to really build chemistry with Gordon and Little and I see no ceiling. Now, he could also regress and be terrible, but so can any second year QB. Luck hasn't proven anything yet either, although Luck does look better than Weeds, no doubt.

Our defense has been great all year, except when we have a lead. Give the defense the year and a few more draft picks and I think they will be scary good next year.

This team has two big problems that need solved. Everything else just needs time and a little luck. First, we need a head coach. We're winning, so it's hard for me to call for SHUR's head, but he probably does need to go. The only thing I'll say is that Mangini was fired right when he started to win and then we got so much worse for a year and a half. I have no desire to see that happen again. So we'd better be damn sure that firing SHUR is a categorical imperative.

Second, we need to play in a different division. The Steelers and the Ravens will never be terrible. Not for more than a decade anyway. And Cinci has talent right now. I don't trust them to not fall apart hilariously, but they have talent and will be a threat. If we are good, then the AFC north will have 4 playoff teams in it, at least for the next 3-6 years. That's just our shitty luck. No other division in the NFL, except perhaps the NFC North, is going to be as consistently loaded.

But if we can overcome those problems, either by SHUR putting it together and by Big Ben losing his legs to a bar accident, or by getting a new HC and having Cinci collapse like the house of cards they so often are, we need those two things to work out or none of the rest matters. Certainly not Weeds.

bac5665 wrote:I saw a talented young football team play like a talented young football team beat a team they were supposed to beat. I see no reason that with a little more seasoning, this team can't compete for a playoff next year. We're 4-3 after the 0-5 start and that bespeaks of improvement to me. We beat the Steelers and then got a streak going.

And best of all, Weeden can make throws I haven't seen a Browns QB make since coming back to the league. Sure, he throws some bad picks. Really bad, sometimes. Almost like he were a rookie with rookie WRs. Give him another offseason to really build chemistry with Gordon and Little and I see no ceiling. Now, he could also regress and be terrible, but so can any second year QB. Luck hasn't proven anything yet either, although Luck does look better than Weeds, no doubt.

Our defense has been great all year, except when we have a lead. Give the defense the year and a few more draft picks and I think they will be scary good next year.

This team has two big problems that need solved. Everything else just needs time and a little luck. First, we need a head coach. We're winning, so it's hard for me to call for SHUR's head, but he probably does need to go. The only thing I'll say is that Mangini was fired right when he started to win and then we got so much worse for a year and a half. I have no desire to see that happen again. So we'd better be damn sure that firing SHUR is a categorical imperative.

Second, we need to play in a different division. The Steelers and the Ravens will never be terrible. Not for more than a decade anyway. And Cinci has talent right now. I don't trust them to not fall apart hilariously, but they have talent and will be a threat. If we are good, then the AFC north will have 4 playoff teams in it, at least for the next 3-6 years. That's just our shitty luck. No other division in the NFL, except perhaps the NFC North, is going to be as consistently loaded.

But if we can overcome those problems, either by SHUR putting it together and by Big Ben losing his legs to a bar accident, or by getting a new HC and having Cinci collapse like the house of cards they so often are, we need those two things to work out or none of the rest matters. Certainly not Weeds.

About Luck? Yeah. He looks damn good now, but he's a rook. Cam looked damn good last year. People were salivating over Dalton too. Cassel looked good for a season or two. So did Alex Smith, Mike Vick, Derek Anderson and dozens more. You have to be great in the playoffs, preferably multiple times. Otherwise you haven't proven anything.

Do I think Luck will be great? Yes. But right now, that's conjecture, not proof. Until last year, I though Eli Manning was mediocre. He proved me wrong. I'm not saying Luck is bad. I think he's great. But I merely think he's great. We don't (and won't) know for a few more years yet.

bac5665 wrote:About Luck? Yeah. He looks damn good now, but he's a rook. Cam looked damn good last year. People were salivating over Dalton too. Cassel looked good for a season or two. So did Alex Smith, Mike Vick, Derek Anderson and dozens more. You have to be great in the playoffs, preferably multiple times. Otherwise you haven't proven anything.

Do I think Luck will be great? Yes. But right now, that's conjecture, not proof. Until last year, I though Eli Manning was mediocre. He proved me wrong. I'm not saying Luck is bad. I think he's great. But I merely think he's great. We don't (and won't) know for a few more years yet.

Ok, that makes more sense now, and I wasn't trying to call you out. I just think the guy has it, and I wish we had him. The 8 wins is huge, with a chance at possibly 10 or more to come. Despite Cam's great year, the Panthers were still 6-10 I believe. Luck has engineered 5 game winning drives, has the rookie record for 300+yd games and the record for most yds in a single game by a rookie, I know you already know these things, just sayin'. And the fact that he went to Stanford makes me believe the mental ups and downs will be handled better along the way as opposed to a guy like Cam. The Colts amazingly positioned themselves to be an elite team fast and I'm jealous haha.

bac5665 wrote:The Colts have had a soft schedule, but yeah, Luck is impressive. No doubt. If the AFC didn't suck this year and if the Colts played in our division they'd be nowhere near the playoffs.

But yeah, damn jealous of the Colts. Even Washington is jealous of the Colts.

The scary part of Luck is watching him get better, game by game. That Colts team that should have been a 3-4 game winner even WITH a solid season from Luck has been far better than I anticipated. (Although lots of people had them as a dark horse coming into the season, so maybe I was uninformed)

At this point i've seen enough to think that this team is legitimately getting better. It's not just smoke and mirrors, for once; all the buzz you've been hearing around the league about it being a young and up-and-coming league appears to be accurate. Wish I knew exactly how much of the offensive stuttering was a result of Weeden making bad decisions/missing open receivers and how much is gameplan. The YPA matching up with Colts, even with the better weapons/arm, points toward it being SHUR.

That being said, even with a tough schedule, SHUR's crappy gameplan should legitimately have this team in the thick of the playoff hunt. (Dropped TD in Indy, derpy penalties/missed calls in Dallas, dropped pick in Philly) We're not even discussing a coaching change if he wins those 3, and that's with a tough schedule and rookies at 4 critical offensive positions.

Lots of positive things, not the least of which is that it's 3 4 weeks from the end of the season, and i've still got interest in watching the games.....something I certainly couldn't say last year. I don't HATE these guys, I just want them to quit making head scratching decisions.

(Knowing full well going into the year that they were going to make a boatload of them)

Check me out at Dawgsbynature, where I write stuff, or @twitter as Josh Finney.

Hikohadon wrote:There's really no reason to compare Weeden to Luck or RG3. Those two were epic prospects for a reason, and that's why Weeds went 20 spots later. There ain't a Luck or RG3 in this draft.

The question ain't if Weeden can be as good as those guys. It's "is the dude good enough to make a solid team a contender?"

Far from answered, imho.

That's not the question, though.

The question is: Is Weeden as good or better than any of the options we have to replace him, taking into consideration the frictional costs of making a change? That question is the same question we should ask of all players/coaches. And we should ask it about every player/coach constantly. The Pats should be asking that about Brady and Bellicheck. It turns out that those two have pretty easy answers, but they should be thinking about it.

And there is a clear, resounding answer to the question for Weeden. NO. We cannot replace Weeden with anyone better, certainly not at a price that is worth it. I'm not certain that we can get better than Weeden for any price now.

SHUR is the difficult question, IMHO. We're winning and fuck disrupting that. But it does look like we're winning despite Shurmur, not because of him. I just look at the firing of Mangini as the worst decision made by the Browns since the return. I really do. So I'm quite gunshy. If we can win with Shurmur, I'm tempted to stay the course. But Gods, it's a dangerous decision either way. So much risk.

Hikohadon wrote:There's really no reason to compare Weeden to Luck or RG3. Those two were epic prospects for a reason, and that's why Weeds went 20 spots later. There ain't a Luck or RG3 in this draft.

The question ain't if Weeden can be as good as those guys. It's "is the dude good enough to make a solid team a contender?"

Far from answered, imho.

That's not the question, though.

The question is: Is Weeden as good or better than any of the options we have to replace him, taking into consideration the frictional costs of making a change? That question is the same question we should ask of all players/coaches. And we should ask it about every player/coach constantly. The Pats should be asking that about Brady and Bellicheck. It turns out that those two have pretty easy answers, but they should be thinking about it.

And there is a clear, resounding answer to the question for Weeden. NO. We cannot replace Weeden with anyone better, certainly not at a price that is worth it. I'm not certain that we can get better than Weeden for any price now.

SHUR is the difficult question, IMHO. We're winning and fuck disrupting that. But it does look like we're winning despite Shurmur, not because of him. I just look at the firing of Mangini as the worst decision made by the Browns since the return. I really do. So I'm quite gunshy. If we can win with Shurmur, I'm tempted to stay the course. But Gods, it's a dangerous decision either way. So much risk.

I think that's always the question with any QB. Indy dumped Peyton freakin' Manning when they figured out they could get Andrew Luck. No one is immune to "can this guy be upgraded"?

I personally don't like any of the QB prospects coming out this year and I know some people will be clamoring for Alex Smith but I ain't one of them. There might be a superior option to Weeden that is available during the offseason, I'm just not sure what it is right now.

bac5665 wrote:SHUR is the difficult question, IMHO. We're winning and fuck disrupting that. But it does look like we're winning despite Shurmur, not because of him. I just look at the firing of Mangini as the worst decision made by the Browns since the return. I really do. So I'm quite gunshy. If we can win with Shurmur, I'm tempted to stay the course. But Gods, it's a dangerous decision either way. So much risk.

I don't think Shur is a difficult question. Winning has more to do with talent than anything else. I think this team has more talent than it has had in many years. There's no reason to think that if you bring in a competent head coach that there will be a step back. It doesn't always have to be that way. Look at Harbaugh in San Fran.

Our coaches have sucked for over a decade. Look at the list. Palmer, Davis, Crennel, Mangini, Shurmer...what has any of them done in the NFL since being canned in Cleveland? Nothing. the only one with a chance might be Mangini. I don't know.

But you can't keep a guy around just for the sake of not "disrupting" the historic steak of barely not sucking completely that we have witness for 2 whole weeks in a row and maybe even another week in a row.

We can win with a good coach. And we can win next year with a good coach. Paddy has shown nothing in 2 years that makes me think he might be that guy who can handle a playoff team, rather than being the guy that bumblefucks his way into 6 wins a year because the talent wont let him bumblefuck to any less than that.

It doesn't look at all to be a good year for QBs and it's downright awful when you compare it to last year. In fact, this draft and the Browns needs just don't mesh when you take a first glance. Yes, tons will change and they'll get better regardless, but even the best DE just ripped up a knee last week and the top ten probably has more DTs than anything else, which isn't where the Browns would likely be concentrating.

I wouldn't be stunned if they took the yin to Haden's yan in a guy like Johnthan Banks or Dee Milliner from Bama and solidified the secondary a bit more if they're toward bottom of top ten and if they're lower than that maybe another Alabama guy like Warmack at OG.

That's not an endorsement of Weeden. More so an indictment of Barkley, Smith, Wilson, et al.

I personally don't like any of the QB prospects coming out this year and I know some people will be clamoring for Alex Smith but I ain't one of them. There might be a superior option to Weeden that is available during the offseason, I'm just not sure what it is right now.

As I said, I think the answer is pretty easy for Weeden. There is no one we can get who is worth the trouble. That means it's Weeden. End of discussion.

I want to see him grow and I want to hear his name when people talk about elite QBs, but as far as making decisions, the question on Weeden is actually pretty easy right now.

I don't think Shur is a difficult question. Winning has more to do with talent than anything else. I think this team has more talent than it has had in many years. There's no reason to think that if you bring in a competent head coach that there will be a step back. It doesn't always have to be that way. Look at Harbaugh in San Fran.

Our coaches have sucked for over a decade. Look at the list. Palmer, Davis, Crennel, Mangini, Shurmer...what has any of them done in the NFL since being canned in Cleveland? Nothing. the only one with a chance might be Mangini. I don't know.

But you can't keep a guy around just for the sake of not "disrupting" the historic steak of barely not sucking completely that we have witness for 2 whole weeks in a row and maybe even another week in a row.

We can win with a good coach. And we can win next year with a good coach. Paddy has shown nothing in 2 years that makes me think he might be that guy who can handle a playoff team, rather than being the guy that bumblefucks his way into 6 wins a year because the talent wont let him bumblefuck to any less than that.

I can't argue with any of that. All I have is that I'm looking at the fact that the vast majority of NFL coaching hires are fired after 2-3 years. Most of them are terrible. Crennel got another job!

I also think that the costs of breaking continuity are really, really high right now. Weeden does have a limited number of seasons and it's more critical for him than for any other Rookie QB to avoid a sophomore slump. We are young everywhere and need to build confidence, and nothing shakes confidence more than having to start from scratch with a new system that these kids don't know. My Gods, but the prospect of a new head coach, new offense, new roster purge is just terrifying and I am certain would do a great deal of short term harm.

Now, it should tell you how bad Shurmur is that I still would consider firing Shurmur long and hard. And a great deal of the decision making would hinge on stuff that us fans simply don't know; how the players treat Shur behind closed doors. The leadership from the players and how well the I would judge them to be able to handle a new system. A whole heap of intangible factors should decide this thing. Are the players mature enough that the costs of change would be minimal?

The point is this. This system is working. It looks ugly, no doubt. My instinct is that we are winning despite Shurmur, not because of him. But Mangini wasn't in too dissimilar of a situation than we are in, especially if we can eek out 2-3 more wins, and look what we ended up with as his successor. Change can be bad as well as good, and I don't see too many great options out there right now.

bac5665 wrote:I also think that the costs of breaking continuity are really, really high right now. Weeden does have a limited number of seasons and it's more critical for him than for any other Rookie QB to avoid a sophomore slump. We are young everywhere and need to build confidence, and nothing shakes confidence more than having to start from scratch with a new system that these kids don't know. My Gods, but the prospect of a new head coach, new offense, new roster purge is just terrifying and I am certain would do a great deal of short term harm.

Now, it should tell you how bad Shurmur is that I still would consider firing Shurmur long and hard. And a great deal of the decision making would hinge on stuff that us fans simply don't know; how the players treat Shur behind closed doors. The leadership from the players and how well the I would judge them to be able to handle a new system. A whole heap of intangible factors should decide this thing. Are the players mature enough that the costs of change would be minimal?

The point is this. This system is working. It looks ugly, no doubt. My instinct is that we are winning despite Shurmur, not because of him. But Mangini wasn't in too dissimilar of a situation than we are in, especially if we can eek out 2-3 more wins, and look what we ended up with as his successor. Change can be bad as well as good, and I don't see too many great options out there right now.

Oh, I still probably fire Shurmur. He probably is that bad.

I just think that we all need to be more depressed about it.

Can I counter that if you really want Weeden to succeed you would be best served to bring in an offensive coach that isn't so slavish to a system that doesn't emphasize his QB's strengths?

Continuity doesn't have to be fucked up by a Shurmination. If the next guy runs a 4-3 and implements a system with similar features but is much more innovative, then you allow your QB (whomever it is) to grow.

Keep Shurmur around and you're risking putting your QB (whomever it is) in a career slump.

For instance, how much different would Shurmur's game plan be each week if the Browns had RG3 instead of Weeden?

And if you said "not much", how enormous of an indictment of Shurmur is that?

Nothing special, very vanilla, middle of the road, not going to be a GOAT type, but he's someone you can just stick in there while you worry about other positions.

If there were another RG3 in this years draft or a Luck, then yeah, I'd consider going out to get one of those guys.

But there's not, so you're stuck with going Vanilla or Geno Smith or something. Frankly, I'd rather go vanilla and get an elite prospect to play defense, and worry about the QB position when he's the one thing standing between you and the Super Bowl.

Make this team a playoff contender first, and then cash in every chip possible to get a great QB if Weeds holds you back from getting the gleam.

Swerb wrote:Go start a blog if you want to tell the world your incomprehendible ramblings.

Cerebral_DownTime wrote:I have a big arm and can throw the ball pretty damn far...... maybe even over those moutains. The Browns should sign me, i'll let you all in locker room to drink beer. Then we can all go out the parking lot to watch me do motorcycle stunts.

Hiko, I'm on board with firing Shurmur, as I'm pretty sure I've said. My point is that the fact that I'm in favor of firing Shurmur, given how disastrous I believe that a coaching change is likely to be, should tell you how bad I think Shurmur is.

That said, while I agree that if we hire the right coach, there transitional costs are minimized, I doubt our chances of finding such a coach. If Joe Banner can find that coach, then holy hell, who knows what might happen next year. But this is Cleveland man. Do you really think we're going to be so lucky? Can you really be so enthusiastic about needing to win the lottery in order to not have our franchise setback 2-4 years?